My take so far:
Hidden Agenda(s) to be exposed:
1) The phrase "
Not applicable" is solid. This legitimately means no cap for CUP35. But as mentioned in Clause below:
I'm not happy with the contradiction of Clauses above.
2) If no cap for CUP35, why bother the confusion between 64 kiloBytes per second OR 64 kilobits per second? The contractions of Clauses in item (1) above is convincing me that they "
will" throttle the speed "
as and when they feels right to do so".
I'm not happy with this particular hidden action(s) taken while "good innocent" subscribers may be "
ACCIDENTALLY" affected by the impact as well.
3) ASSUMING at one point of the calendar month/validity credit, they "
ACCIDENTALLY" throttle at 64 kiloBytes per second (assuming this unit is not typo error), it is at par with HUP35. However, they can also "
ACCIDENTALLY" throttle the speed to 64 kilobits per second at one point without notice to Subscribers.
I'm not happy with the units used for throttling activity. I'd prefer they follow HUP35 throttling unit as in 512kbps rather than using storage unit of 64KBps.
4) Forcing Subscribers to monitor usage when no cap on FUP Limit:
Why "forcing" the "good innocent" Subscribers to monitor the monthly usage when they have confident to not throttle the speed of CUP35 as in item 1 above?
I'm not happy to know that there will be a scenario when "SUDDENLY" throttling to 64 kiloBytes per second (if this is not typo error) when no illegal activities is done by the "good innocent" Subscribers.
Conclusion:
CUP35
has been erased in my memory as of today. Will revisit/review again next month to see if any changes in the TnC and FUP documentation.
Case is KIV... and Back To Topic, please...